Somerset v Surrey, Taunton, 3rd day August 30, 2012

Kartik run-out of Barrow sparks anger

David Lloyd at Taunton
46

Surrey 317 and 58 for 0 lead Somerset 294 (Trego 92, Hildreth 85, Kartik 4-70, Meaker 4-74) by 81 runs
Scorecard

Surrey were booed from the field here and called "a disgrace to cricket" by angry spectators after their India spinner Murali Kartik ran out Somerset batsman Alex Barrow for backing up too far and then the captain, Gareth Batty, refused to withdraw the highly contentious appeal.

Kartik, playing against the county he left at the end of last season and clearly fired up, removed a bail at the non-striker's end as he was about to deliver the final ball of an over, having seen that Barrow was out of his crease.

The bowler was within his rights to claim the wicket, and had cautioned the batsman earlier in the over for leaving his ground too early. That initial warning, although it has never been strictly necessary under the laws of the game, gives Kartik an additional line of defence against those who believe he broke the spirit of the game.

Law 42.15, as adapted by ECB playing regulations for championship cricket, simply states: "The bowler is permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing, to attempt to run out the non-striker."

For all that, this type of dismissal, known as 'Mankading' and still rare at any level of cricket in England, is widely seen as unsporting.

Somerset supporters among a crowd of around 2,000 certainly thought so - especially when it became clear that Batty, the former England spinner who took over as Surrey captain in early July, was not going to intervene to save the 20-year-old Barrow.

Batty and bowler's end umpire Peter Hartley had a long conversation, during which the official apparently asked on three occasions whether the skipper wanted to withdraw Kartik's appeal. Finally, and reluctantly it seemed, Hartley raised his finger.

The crowd booed as Barrow trudged away in mid-afternoon, they booed again at the start of Kartik's next over, slow handclapped Surrey for a short time and then jeered once more when Batty finally introduced himself to the attack an hour after the run-out incident.

But the reception the visitors received either side of tea was more hostile still. When Surrey's players left the field, they were jeered into their dressing room as angry spectators gathered by the Andy Caddick Pavilion.

One man, who announced himself as a Surrey member, shouted that Batty and Kartik should resign, adding that the team ought to be "ashamed" of themselves. Among the comments from Somerset supporters was the cry: "You are a disgrace to cricket."

Somerset's grim-faced players stood on their balcony, looking down on their opponents. The captain, Marcus Trescothick, appeared during the interval to placate a home supporter who was particularly furious. A 20-minute break did nothing to reduce the general strength of feeling, however. When Surrey trooped out for the final session, with Batty and Kartik in the leading group, the boos rang out again.

Barrow, a young batsman who has struggled for runs this season and not made a half-century in 13 Championship innings, was silly to leave his crease prematurely on more than one occasion, especially given that his team were trying to consolidate after three wickets in 14 balls from Kartik had reduced them to 167 for 5. But it is safe to assume that many more people than those doing the jeering here will feel that Surrey have behaved in an unsporting manner contrary to the spirit of the game.

As recently as February of this year, India captain Virender Sehwag withdrew an appeal after the spinner R Ashwin had run out Sri Lanka's Lahiru Thirimanne during a one-day international. And that, a majority of cricket-lovers may feel, is the way it should be.

Kartik, who was angry last winter when some Somerset supporters criticised his conduct regarding a move to Surrey, had been ticking all afternoon - whooping and hollering with delight as he won lbw decisions against James Hildreth, Chris Jones and Jos Buttler in quick succession after lunch. Then, just before running out Barrow, he sarcastically applauded the youngster following a lofted straight drive that whistled for four.

Even after the controversial dismissal, Kartik was far from shame-faced. And nor was Batty. Umpires Hartley and Steve Gale stopped play to tell Surrey's captain that there was too much chat from at least one of the close fielders - and, having passed on the information, Batty seemed to mimic the crowd's slow hand-clapping.

As for the cricket, Peter Trego gave Somerset and their fans some joy by crunching 92 runs from 110 balls - an innings that included two swept sixes off Kartik. Even then, the hosts narrowly failed to reach Surrey's 317 and, by the close, the visitors had extended their advantage to 81.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • cnumadhu on September 1, 2012, 19:34 GMT

    ICC should bring in a new mode of dismissal if the non-striker tries to stroll before the bowler delivers. It should be called "Stunned" instead of "Mankading" which no one seems to like :)

  • RogerC on September 1, 2012, 6:46 GMT

    Mankading should be given a proper cricketing name and made legal. The batsman is cheating in this case, not the bowler.

  • ansram on August 31, 2012, 15:14 GMT

    English(Somerset) fans need to grow up, seriously. The rule is there to prevent batsmen from gaining unfair advantage while taking a quick single and Murali just exercised his rights as a bowler.

  • on August 31, 2012, 12:46 GMT

    Its out and simple as that the rules are the rules. By withdrawing a ligitament appeal in which the batsman is clearly out the feilding captain would shurly be against the spirit of the game. As a batsman it is not that hard to wait until they have entered their delivery stried just take a few harder steps and you'll be a simmilar distance down the wicket anyway. The rules of the game are alreaddy biased enough in the batsmans favour we can hardly go around ignoring the few rules that dont favour the batsman.

  • Sun25 on August 31, 2012, 12:38 GMT

    Murli Karthik is being criticized roundly by being over-competitve against his former team-mates. Maybe, the England fans prefer their players to have friendly relationships with their former team-mates and to share a beer and a few jokes and text-messages with them, even when they are in the opposing team. Surely, there is an England player who set a shining example of such behaviour very recently? @dantheman96?

  • averagecricketfan on August 31, 2012, 12:29 GMT

    This is for people like Mr. Kendall who question this in the name of the 'spirit of the game' and decry such incidents as most 'un-English' like. A case of selective memory, perhaps?

    Grant Elliot was run out after he had a collision with Ryan Sidebottom. The umpires came to Paul Collingwood (then cap'n) to consider the appeal. And as an upholder of the 'spirit of the game' Colly stood by the appeal. Yes, he did apologise later on, but the damage had been done. Remember, Vettori was also involved in a a similar incident. Thankfully, he thought otherwise.

    If you're taking the 'Murali's-venting-his-frustration' route, Stuart Broad threw a ball at Zulqarnain Haider (and it hit his shoulder). There was some speculation that 'the enforcer' did it to vent out his frustration at a caught-behind decision that went against him earlier in the match. 50% match fee-fine and we have the spirit of the game restored.

    (Tried my best not to mention the Ian 'strolling-in-the-park' Bell run out. Oops!)

  • Sun25 on August 31, 2012, 12:26 GMT

    It has become a practice now for umpires to check with the third-umpire if the bowler over-stepped by even a few millimetres when a batsmen is given out. So clearly the bowler is not expected/ allowed to get an advantage of even a few mm, whether or not it is done deliberately. However, a batsman consciously and deliberately getting advantage by leaving his crease early, despite warnings, feels the bowler must respect the "spirit of cricket" and not run him out! UTTER NONSENSE!

  • leave_it_to_the_umps on August 31, 2012, 11:14 GMT

    Agree with most comments - Spirit of cricket was giving a warning - the only thing against the spriit of cricket is the reaction and abuse from the somerset supporters... GET OVER IT the rules are clear and he was warned so if he choose to continue to try and gain an advantage then kartik had every right both within the rules and the spirit of the game to run him out. bit disappointed the umpire made such a big deal out of tring to get batty to change the decision - that was not necessary and probably inflamed the situation!

  • Wharfeseamer on August 31, 2012, 11:01 GMT

    TBH this type of issue, along with whether or not a batsman should walk (he shouldn't), are the cricketing equivalent of the argument as to whether or not a man should always lower the seat when he has been! A marmite position... if you will.

  • SpizenFire on August 31, 2012, 11:01 GMT

    Marcus+Alex ... stand up and sort this mess. It indeed does disgrace and shame the game of cricket .... not how it was played (the rules and spirit of game both withheld in this particular situation), but the mob reaction from the county fans and yes... indeed your silence.

  • cnumadhu on September 1, 2012, 19:34 GMT

    ICC should bring in a new mode of dismissal if the non-striker tries to stroll before the bowler delivers. It should be called "Stunned" instead of "Mankading" which no one seems to like :)

  • RogerC on September 1, 2012, 6:46 GMT

    Mankading should be given a proper cricketing name and made legal. The batsman is cheating in this case, not the bowler.

  • ansram on August 31, 2012, 15:14 GMT

    English(Somerset) fans need to grow up, seriously. The rule is there to prevent batsmen from gaining unfair advantage while taking a quick single and Murali just exercised his rights as a bowler.

  • on August 31, 2012, 12:46 GMT

    Its out and simple as that the rules are the rules. By withdrawing a ligitament appeal in which the batsman is clearly out the feilding captain would shurly be against the spirit of the game. As a batsman it is not that hard to wait until they have entered their delivery stried just take a few harder steps and you'll be a simmilar distance down the wicket anyway. The rules of the game are alreaddy biased enough in the batsmans favour we can hardly go around ignoring the few rules that dont favour the batsman.

  • Sun25 on August 31, 2012, 12:38 GMT

    Murli Karthik is being criticized roundly by being over-competitve against his former team-mates. Maybe, the England fans prefer their players to have friendly relationships with their former team-mates and to share a beer and a few jokes and text-messages with them, even when they are in the opposing team. Surely, there is an England player who set a shining example of such behaviour very recently? @dantheman96?

  • averagecricketfan on August 31, 2012, 12:29 GMT

    This is for people like Mr. Kendall who question this in the name of the 'spirit of the game' and decry such incidents as most 'un-English' like. A case of selective memory, perhaps?

    Grant Elliot was run out after he had a collision with Ryan Sidebottom. The umpires came to Paul Collingwood (then cap'n) to consider the appeal. And as an upholder of the 'spirit of the game' Colly stood by the appeal. Yes, he did apologise later on, but the damage had been done. Remember, Vettori was also involved in a a similar incident. Thankfully, he thought otherwise.

    If you're taking the 'Murali's-venting-his-frustration' route, Stuart Broad threw a ball at Zulqarnain Haider (and it hit his shoulder). There was some speculation that 'the enforcer' did it to vent out his frustration at a caught-behind decision that went against him earlier in the match. 50% match fee-fine and we have the spirit of the game restored.

    (Tried my best not to mention the Ian 'strolling-in-the-park' Bell run out. Oops!)

  • Sun25 on August 31, 2012, 12:26 GMT

    It has become a practice now for umpires to check with the third-umpire if the bowler over-stepped by even a few millimetres when a batsmen is given out. So clearly the bowler is not expected/ allowed to get an advantage of even a few mm, whether or not it is done deliberately. However, a batsman consciously and deliberately getting advantage by leaving his crease early, despite warnings, feels the bowler must respect the "spirit of cricket" and not run him out! UTTER NONSENSE!

  • leave_it_to_the_umps on August 31, 2012, 11:14 GMT

    Agree with most comments - Spirit of cricket was giving a warning - the only thing against the spriit of cricket is the reaction and abuse from the somerset supporters... GET OVER IT the rules are clear and he was warned so if he choose to continue to try and gain an advantage then kartik had every right both within the rules and the spirit of the game to run him out. bit disappointed the umpire made such a big deal out of tring to get batty to change the decision - that was not necessary and probably inflamed the situation!

  • Wharfeseamer on August 31, 2012, 11:01 GMT

    TBH this type of issue, along with whether or not a batsman should walk (he shouldn't), are the cricketing equivalent of the argument as to whether or not a man should always lower the seat when he has been! A marmite position... if you will.

  • SpizenFire on August 31, 2012, 11:01 GMT

    Marcus+Alex ... stand up and sort this mess. It indeed does disgrace and shame the game of cricket .... not how it was played (the rules and spirit of game both withheld in this particular situation), but the mob reaction from the county fans and yes... indeed your silence.

  • bertbean on August 31, 2012, 10:41 GMT

    People seem to be missing something here. Those at the game-both sets of supporters, the players (except Kartik) and the officials-accepted the decision but regarded the dismissal as a shabby tactic. Those not at the game (and journalists, who love to stir a controvesy) have a different view. Which group is in a better position to judge? If, as seems to be the case, Kartik was motivated by a sense of grievance against his former team, then it is most certainly a regrettable incident. Kartik may have gained a small advantage for his team but he has also lost the good will of Somerset supporters, who previously held him in some esteem. I hope he feels it was worth it.

  • Munkeymomo on August 31, 2012, 10:39 GMT

    @IKJE: Yes, before my time but I read about it and it was a pretty poor decision by Rose. What happened to that side though? They got kicked out of the comp didn't they? I think the reaction from the fans may be to do with venting a bit of steam after another disappointing year at a player who acted quite poorly towards the club last year (and that is probably why Kartik chose to do it too, which would make him come off as a pretty unprofessional guy).

  • dogcatcher on August 31, 2012, 10:27 GMT

    Interesting. In the last game of the test series, Prior ran out Morkel and tried to run out another saffa well after he had collected the ball, almost to the point that it was in the umpires discression whether the ball was dead or not. Clear opinion was that the batsmen was silly. I personally thought a warning not too dismilar to that given by Kartik would have been more apt but the laws state it ok and therefore no arguement. How is this situtation which now is becoming pandemic any different. When you lose by 1 run no one questions whether you were backing up too much or illegally. The outcome was correct and the crowds and indeed any neigh sayers need to grow up.

  • oze13 on August 31, 2012, 10:18 GMT

    The batsmen was at fault and to be fair to him he accepted the decision. He was warned once and then Kartik ran him out. How far should you be allowed to back up? 1", 1 foot, 1 yard or half the length of the pitch? Keep in your crease and don't seek to gain an unfair advantage. Simple!

  • edgie on August 31, 2012, 10:11 GMT

    What prevents the batsman from standing next to his partner then? I think the rule should be that if the bowler sees the batsman is out of hsi crease, he should be allwoed to run him out. The crease is there for a reason, for the batsman to be BEHIND it during delivery. The rules should be that once the bal has left the hand, only then can the bastman advance out of the crease. And how is it unsportsman like? It's unsportsmanlike when a batsman who knows he is out, does not walk uness the unpire says so.

  • wibblewibble on August 31, 2012, 9:41 GMT

    It's a matter of class. Courtney Walsh had class; he refused to Mankad a Pakistan batsman during a WC match - if he had, WI would have won the game. Mo Rafique has class; he refused to Mankad Umar Gul, which would have given BD a test win.

    Batty should have known better. The convention in England is to never Mankad, hence why it is poor gamesmanship to suddenly do it in the middle of a match, and as captain, he should have known that. The umps gave him every opportunity to get out of it gracefully.

  • Wharfeseamer on August 31, 2012, 9:31 GMT

    Perhaps Somerset supporters should be a little more circumspect before raising the spirit of cricket card... Plenty of us remember the one over declaration Somerset made to ensure qualification through the B&H group stage on run rate.

  • Wharfeseamer on August 31, 2012, 8:11 GMT

    The person in the wrong - and therefore not acting within the spirit of the game - is the batsman. He is gaining an UNFAIR advantage by backing up out of his ground before the ball is bowled. He was warned to stop doing it, yet he continued. What is the bowler supposed to do? Keep warning him over and over until everyone is bored to death? I think a warning is reasonable - the batsman may be doing it inadvertently - and then if they persist they are fair game. Hopefully the young batsman has learned a lesson.

    Jack Kellaway... who died and made you king? You do not represent the feelings of England as a whole let me assure you, as witnessed by the majority of the comments on this forum.

  • Munkeymomo on August 31, 2012, 8:10 GMT

    @unregisteredalien: Whilst I agree that he was out plain and simple I'd hardly say that is a borderline racist remark. I have to say I'm a little shocked at the reaction. News from twitter suggests Trescothick was angry about it, which is unusual.

    @the_blue_android. Attitudes in football are completely different to that of cricket, the reason we haven't won a world cup since 66 is because we haven't had players better than ones from other countries since then. Actually, probably the same reason we've not won a world cup in cricket too!

  • dantheman96 on August 31, 2012, 7:33 GMT

    There was no need for Kartik to do that against his old team. To be honest, those dismissals could happen a lot more, and for some reason Kartik chose to pick on a young batsman who, if you watch it again, was clearly not trying to unfairly gain ground. And to have a go at Somerset supporters is bad, as any county's supporters would do that if the player who had done the run out had betrayed them the previous season.

  • gagguv on August 31, 2012, 7:19 GMT

    The major culprit in this situation is the umpire Hartley. Is he ignorant about the rules? If so better give up. What was his point in asking three times? Some hearing problem or attitude problem? In India vs Sri Lanka match also, the umpire, a former Aus player Reiffel, instead of giving out was asking again and again Sehwag if he wants to continue with his appeal!! The major drama is created by umpires, who instead of owning responsibility are passing the buck onto the captains and make them scapegoats or look villains in the eye of public.

  • Adeel9 on August 31, 2012, 3:46 GMT

    If acting within the rules is not in the spirit of the game then we descend into anarchy. Only people not upholding the spirit of the game are the people who booed and people who support them.

  • on August 31, 2012, 2:58 GMT

    Cricket has become a more competitive sport and hard fought game and as such, this rule should be accepted by all as being part and parcel of the game, just like a no-ball, wide ball or any other rule for that matter.

    Murali was well within his rights to run Barrow out. And once they stuck to their appeal, Batty should not have felt ashamed as they did nothing wrong. He should not have apologized for sticking to their decision.

    New Kids need to learn the A,B,C of the game before they step out onto the playing field. If you don't, you suffer the consequences. Simple as that

  • cricraz on August 31, 2012, 2:49 GMT

    There are ICC rules and when you run someone out even after warning( not necessary after the new rules), how is that not in the spirit of the game. I think the English like to hold on their rules despite the world changing. The young kid will thank Karthik if he is so fortunate to play international cricket because nobody is going to feel sorry for him then.

  • the_blue_android on August 31, 2012, 2:23 GMT

    @ Jack Kendall. I can understand that. Only in England is the game taken so lightly. I'm sure if there was 1 run left to win the game and the bowler saw batsman back up too far, the bowler would just let him go n take a run and then go have tea. This attitude is exactly why you guys don't have an odi WC and the same reason why no Football WC since 66.

  • Coxiestlucia on August 31, 2012, 2:16 GMT

    I am baffled and taken aback when I read someone saying, "I am shocked by it", "Bad sportsmanship", "Bad manners to do so", "That was astonishing & disappointing" - Let's face it, Law 42.15 allows a bowler, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run-out the non-striker who leaves his ground too soon. Such action by the non-striker is regarded as unfair and the Law compensates the fielding side for any advantage that the batsman may get, by making him liable to being run out. The Law is clear and simple. Why should the bowler who follows the Law be victimized, moreso he had already warned the batsman earlier in the over - a caution he did not have to make period. I am also surprised at the Umpire who asked the fielding captain whether he would like the appeal to stand. If you contravene any of the Laws then you suffer the consequences accordingly. The run out by Kartik certainly does not challenge the spirit of the game.

  • unregisteredalien on August 31, 2012, 2:03 GMT

    The only unsporting people in this scenario are the booing "supporters" at the ground and those making borderline racist remarks like "we don't want play like that in England". There is absolutely nothing wrong, either ethically or according to the laws of the game, with running out a non-striker who is trying to get a headstart and is out of his ground at the critical moment. No one complains when a runner is out trying to steal a base in baseball, or when a sprinter is disqualified for jumping the gun. I cannot believe some cricket people are still deluding themselves that there is anything whatsoever wrong with Mankading.

  • on August 31, 2012, 2:03 GMT

    Bradman on Mankading: "For the life of me I cannot understand why. The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker must keep within his ground until the ball is delivered. If not why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out?

    "By backing up too far or too early the non-striker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage. On numerous occasions he may avoid being run at the opposition end by gaining the false start. I am well aware that few bowlers ever seek to take advantage of such an opportunity. It would be well nigh impossible for some of them to do so…..only the slower types of bowlers have a chance. Mankad was an ideal type and he was so scrupulously fair that first of all warned Brown before taking any action. There was absolutely no feeling in the matter as far as we were concerned, for we considered it quite a legitimate part of the game.

    "I always make it a practice when occupying the position of a non-striker to keep my bat behind the cr"

  • bobagorof on August 31, 2012, 1:00 GMT

    Ok, so this article (and the Somerset spectators) are advocating never enforcing a run-out in this fashion? I can forsee the ridiculous situation where a batsmen consistently leaves his ground early, the bowler runs him out, and the captain withdraws the appeal - every ball. Why wouldn't the batsmen do this every ball? If they know that it's 'not within the spirit of the game' to actually enforce the rule against them doing this, then apparently it is within the spirit of the game for them to take advantage. Why bother having the rule in the first place, then? The reality is that Alex Barrow broke the rules, was warned by the bowler (which was a courtesy) and then infringed again. I see no reason why he shouldn't be penalised for breaking the rules (the way bowlers are for bowling no-balls). The Somerset crowd need to think about their unsporting behaviour toward a visiting team.

  • D.V.C. on August 31, 2012, 0:42 GMT

    Not within the spirit of the game for Barrow to put Kartik in that position if you ask me. The batsman needs to take responsibility for his actions. As a bowler if the batsman is taking liberties with the crease and you tell him 'If you do that again I'm going to have to run you out," and he does it again, then you've got to do it or else the batsman will keep taking advantage of you.

  • D-Ascendant on August 31, 2012, 0:40 GMT

    What a to-do in county cricket! Who knew the man and his dog could be so miffed? For shame, sir, for shame! My mustache bristles in outrage, and my upper lip quivers.

  • on August 30, 2012, 23:23 GMT

    Not within the spirit, pretty poor from kartik, we don't want play like that in England.

  • on August 30, 2012, 22:41 GMT

    Either honor the rule and deal with it. Else change the rule and just call the run "one-short" the same way as a short-run would be called.

  • on August 30, 2012, 21:19 GMT

    Don't see anything wrong, seriously spectators don't know the rules, it was within the rules.

  • on August 30, 2012, 20:56 GMT

    Agree with all the comments so far, can't see any reason why a batter should get a warning that they might be mankadded. If you think you have a right to a free headstart up the pitch as the non striker, think again.

  • jango_moh on August 30, 2012, 20:41 GMT

    i dnt see what the issue is here.. the batsman was warned once(even tho thats not required), and that was def in the spirit of the game... if the batsman did it again, i feel he was the one who was unsporting!!!!

  • on August 30, 2012, 20:39 GMT

    Why have a rule which is against the spirit of the game.... Funny people, Funny rules :)

  • chetism on August 30, 2012, 20:22 GMT

    It was not sunday wheel-Brrow game darling.It was gracious of murali to warn you once.But some learn it hard...Now for the rest of ur life u will not leave crease even for runs...get life somerset fans

  • Love_Tanmay on August 30, 2012, 19:56 GMT

    this is not.unsporting....if.karthik.remove.bails without warn him then we said this is.unfair ....but as law he warn borrow early then remove bail.....why they withdraw appeal???? they work hard for wicket...when bowler ball front foot noball and if any batsman out at that time why they donn't leave crease.....

  • MrMankad on August 30, 2012, 19:47 GMT

    Good on Murali! If the kid decides to take a stroll even after being warned, then not only should he be Mankaded, he should be prevented from picking a bat ever again. What a fool. There is a reason we have a crease on the pitch! You can't be running anywhere you like anytime.

  • Stumay on August 30, 2012, 19:41 GMT

    It's been a batsman's game for too long at Taunton. All this moaning at least makes a change from them bottling every single final going.

  • on August 30, 2012, 19:37 GMT

    When will the batsmen learn that the non striker's end is not a place to take a stroll, He learnt the lesson today so end this debate and get along with your lives

  • on August 30, 2012, 19:19 GMT

    What if a batsman completes a quick run by setting off early? Would he be expected to withdraw the run?

  • screamingeagle on August 30, 2012, 19:16 GMT

    Well, I don't know who is more silly. The batsman or the spectators. Serves them (both) right, I say. Hope there is one more run out like this, might be fun.

  • on August 30, 2012, 18:29 GMT

    That should teach the young batsman not to back up to early.

  • Akshita29 on August 30, 2012, 18:26 GMT

    If surrey does not win they might have go down to division 2. Team definitely needed some fire for somewhere after maynard tragedy . And if its unsporting how the batsman backing up that far to be runout even after warning can be called sporting.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Akshita29 on August 30, 2012, 18:26 GMT

    If surrey does not win they might have go down to division 2. Team definitely needed some fire for somewhere after maynard tragedy . And if its unsporting how the batsman backing up that far to be runout even after warning can be called sporting.

  • on August 30, 2012, 18:29 GMT

    That should teach the young batsman not to back up to early.

  • screamingeagle on August 30, 2012, 19:16 GMT

    Well, I don't know who is more silly. The batsman or the spectators. Serves them (both) right, I say. Hope there is one more run out like this, might be fun.

  • on August 30, 2012, 19:19 GMT

    What if a batsman completes a quick run by setting off early? Would he be expected to withdraw the run?

  • on August 30, 2012, 19:37 GMT

    When will the batsmen learn that the non striker's end is not a place to take a stroll, He learnt the lesson today so end this debate and get along with your lives

  • Stumay on August 30, 2012, 19:41 GMT

    It's been a batsman's game for too long at Taunton. All this moaning at least makes a change from them bottling every single final going.

  • MrMankad on August 30, 2012, 19:47 GMT

    Good on Murali! If the kid decides to take a stroll even after being warned, then not only should he be Mankaded, he should be prevented from picking a bat ever again. What a fool. There is a reason we have a crease on the pitch! You can't be running anywhere you like anytime.

  • Love_Tanmay on August 30, 2012, 19:56 GMT

    this is not.unsporting....if.karthik.remove.bails without warn him then we said this is.unfair ....but as law he warn borrow early then remove bail.....why they withdraw appeal???? they work hard for wicket...when bowler ball front foot noball and if any batsman out at that time why they donn't leave crease.....

  • chetism on August 30, 2012, 20:22 GMT

    It was not sunday wheel-Brrow game darling.It was gracious of murali to warn you once.But some learn it hard...Now for the rest of ur life u will not leave crease even for runs...get life somerset fans

  • on August 30, 2012, 20:39 GMT

    Why have a rule which is against the spirit of the game.... Funny people, Funny rules :)